3 ms·

Van, nothing personal (because you are an awesome nice guy), but it was your statements at the last PyCon that you believe the GPL doesn't apply to Python becau

by zedshaw 16y ago

Van, nothing personal (because you are an awesome nice guy), but it was your statements at the last PyCon that you believe the GPL doesn't apply to Python because of the concept of "linking". Several times you said this, and it's been repeated and now becoming a standard belief. It was reinforced in your lightning talk: http://python.mirocommunity.org/video/1374/pycon-2010-plenary-friday-even http://python.mirocommunity.org/video/1374/pycon-2010-plenar... At 8:08 where you plainly get how include files work wrong, and then attempt to equate that to how Python works, but you ran out of time. That combined with your previous statements regarding linking seems to have people thinking Python is not "linking" and therefore doesn't follow the GPL. This belief is now permeating the Python community and I think it shouldn't. The last thing I want is Python being known as the GPL violation language, which would set a very dangerous trend among dynamic languages potentially giving companies another reason not to use them for fear of being "delinked" by them. I'm not saying it's your fault, but it's a general belief that's now supported by your statements which I feel are actually entirely wrong. Now, if you are saying here you didn't say that, then please, write a blog post that I can "link" to clarifying things so that I can get people to stop thinking that using Python you somehow magically get around the GPL. Of course, your statements didn't make me change the license, that was more I'm bored with Lamson and just want people to use it now and quit bugging me about it.

VanL 16y ago
Hmm, I will have to go back and review what I said to see if I misspoke. The basic issue is that open source licenses are copyright licenses, and so their enforceability is tied to the scope of copyright. The scope of copyright as applied to software is not at all clear, despite what anyone will tell you. And, probably not surprisingly, a lot of the ambiguity around the scope of copyright comes from the use of interfaces, APIs, and methods of linking. Python, like any dynamic language, is fuzzy around the boundaries here. There are so many square pegs and round holes that anytime someone says something is "clearly" a derivative work, that person is almost certainly incorrect. The concepts of copyright were never meant to apply directly to software, and the law doesn't work the way people frequently intuitively think it does. The problem is that applying copyright (and patent, but thats another story) restrictions to software has broad implications for what you can do with the software. This isn't just a practical issue; it is a freedom issue in the Free Software sense. I see so many bogus claims each day about IP that I have become very wary of its scope. For example, a couple years ago Blizzard was able to get an injunction against another company because the other company sold a program that scripted Blizzard's software. No modification, just GUI automation. I was horrified, and disagreed, but they were able to put together a winning argument. I unabashedly advocate boundaries on copyright. I think authors should say where they consider their code to end, and other code to begin. I think those boundaries should be reasonable within the scope of the law. I think this principle applies even (or especially) when it is free or open source software.
- blasdel 16y ago
  There's no end to the questions raised: http://jacobian.org/writing/gpl-questions/ http://jacobian.org/writing/gpl-questions/ …and no answers for them: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=702369 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=702369
- cschwarm 16y ago
  You might be interested in the following discussion and reference: http://www.law.washington.edu/lct/swp/Law/derivative.html http://www.law.washington.edu/lct/swp/Law/derivative.html

by zedshaw 16y ago

VanL 16y ago

Hmm, I will have to go back and review what I said to see if I misspoke. The basic issue is that open source licenses are copyright licenses, and so their enforceability is tied to the scope of copyright. The scope of copyright as applied to software is not at all clear, despite what anyone will tell you. And, probably not surprisingly, a lot of the ambiguity around the scope of copyright comes from the use of interfaces, APIs, and methods of linking. Python, like any dynamic language, is fuzzy around the boundaries here. There are so many square pegs and round holes that anytime someone says something is "clearly" a derivative work, that person is almost certainly incorrect. The concepts of copyright were never meant to apply directly to software, and the law doesn't work the way people frequently intuitively think it does. The problem is that applying copyright (and patent, but thats another story) restrictions to software has broad implications for what you can do with the software. This isn't just a practical issue; it is a freedom issue in the Free Software sense. I see so many bogus claims each day about IP that I have become very wary of its scope. For example, a couple years ago Blizzard was able to get an injunction against another company because the other company sold a program that scripted Blizzard's software. No modification, just GUI automation. I was horrified, and disagreed, but they were able to put together a winning argument. I unabashedly advocate boundaries on copyright. I think authors should say where they consider their code to end, and other code to begin. I think those boundaries should be reasonable within the scope of the law. I think this principle applies even (or especially) when it is free or open source software.

blasdel 16y ago
There's no end to the questions raised: http://jacobian.org/writing/gpl-questions/ http://jacobian.org/writing/gpl-questions/ …and no answers for them: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=702369 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=702369
cschwarm 16y ago
You might be interested in the following discussion and reference: http://www.law.washington.edu/lct/swp/Law/derivative.html http://www.law.washington.edu/lct/swp/Law/derivative.html